DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes-The claim recites a device for moving an examination table, and is therefore a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites the limitation “acquire first conversion information for converting the number of pixels in a camera image from a center position of the camera image to a measurement start position of the examinee into a distance from the center position of the camera image to the measurement start position, based on the sensor-to-measurement target part distance information; and convert the number of pixels in the camera image from the center position of the camera image to the measurement start position into a distance in a plane orthogonal to the up- down direction from the center position of the camera image to the measurement start position, with respect to a position in the up-down direction of the measurement start position of the examinee, by using the first conversion information”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integrated into Practical Application: No the claim recites “An examination table movement control device comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories that store a program including one or more instructions executed by the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors execute the program stored in the one or more memories to acquire, by using a sensor attached to a measurement room in which an examination table is installed, sensor-to-measurement target part distance information representing a distance from the sensor to a surface of a measurement target part of an examinee that faces the sensor in an up-down direction orthogonal to an installation surface of the examination table, the examinee being placed on the examination table; which is generated by imaging the examinee using a camera attached to the measurement room” which are pre-solution insignificant activities that merely amount to data gathering.
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is there directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes-For the same reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- the claim recites “ wherein the one or more processors acquire, as the first conversion information, a slope and an intercept of a linear function representing a conversion relationship between the number of pixels of the camera image and the distance for each position in the up-down direction.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integrated into Practical Application: No the claim does not recite further claim elements.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2 there are not any additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 2 is ineligible.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes-For the same reasons as claim 2.
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- the claim recites “ wherein the linear function is derived by using a position of the tabletop in the up-down direction at a home position where the tabletop is at its lowest, home position conversion information representing the conversion relationship between the number of pixels and the distance at the home position, a position of the tabletop in the up-down direction at a highest position where the tabletop is at its highest, and highest position conversion information representing the conversion relationship between the number of pixels and the distance at the highest position.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integrated into Practical Application: No the claim does not recite further claim elements.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, there are not any additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 3 is ineligible.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes-For the same reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- the claim recites “ herein the one or more processors acquire a distance from the center position of the camera image to the measurement start position in a movement direction of the tabletop that is parallel to the plane orthogonal to the up-down direction.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integrated into Practical Application: No the claim does not recite further claim elements.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, there are not any additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 4 is ineligible.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes-For the same reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- the claim recites “acquire second conversion information representing a variation in a distance from the sensor to the tabletop for each position based on the center position of the camera image in a movement direction of the tabletop, and in a case in which the sensor is attached in an inclined state with respect to the installation surface, for the distance from the sensor to the tabletop acquired by using the sensor, correct the acquired distance from the sensor to the tabletop by using the variation at a position in the movement direction of the tabletop where the distance is derived.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integrated into Practical Application: No the claim does not recite further claim elements.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, there are not any additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 5 is ineligible.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes-For the same reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- the claim recites “wherein the one or more processors acquire a moving distance of the tabletop in a movement direction of the tabletop in a case in which the measurement start position of the examinee is moved to a specified position in a measurement device that measures the examinee, based on the distance from the center position of the camera image to the measurement start position of the examinee.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integrated into Practical Application: No the claim does not recite further claim elements.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, there are not any additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 6 is ineligible.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes-For the same reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- For the same reasons as claim 1 as there are no additional Judicial Exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integrated into Practical Application: No. The claim recites the limitation “ wherein the specified position is a position where scanogram imaging is started”.
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, there are not any additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 7 is ineligible.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes-The claim recites a method for moving an examination table, and is therefore a method.
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites the limitation “acquiring first conversion information for converting the number of pixels in a camera image from a center position of the camera image to a measurement start position of the examinee into a distance from the center position of the camera image to the measurement start position, based on the sensor-to-measurement target part distance information; and converting the number of pixels in the camera image from the center position of the camera image to the measurement start position into a distance in a plane orthogonal to the up- down direction from the center position of the camera image to the measurement start position, with respect to a position in the up-down direction of the measurement start position of the examinee, by using the first conversion information”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integrated into Practical Application: No the claim recites “acquiring, by using a sensor attached to a measurement room in which an examination table is installed, sensor-to-measurement target part distance information representing a distance from the sensor to a surface of a measurement target part of an examinee that faces the sensor in an up-down direction orthogonal to an installation surface of the examination table, the examinee being placed on the examination table; which is generated by imaging the examinee using a camera attached to the measurement room” which are pre-solution insignificant activities that merely amount to data gathering.
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is there directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 8 is ineligible.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes-For the same reasons as claim 8
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- for the same reasons as claim 8 as claim 9 does not recite further judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integrated into Practical Application: No the claim recites “A non-transitory, computer-readable tangible recording medium which records thereon, a program for causing a computer to” which are pre-solution insignificant activities that merely amount to data gathering in a generic computer environment.
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is there directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 9 is ineligible.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes-The claim recites an apparatus for moving an examination table, and is therefore a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites the limitation “acquire first conversion information for converting the number of pixels in a camera image from a center position of the camera image to a measurement start position of the examinee into a distance from the center position of the camera image to the measurement start position, based on the sensor-to-measurement target part distance information; and convert the number of pixels in the camera image from the center position of the camera image to the measurement start position into a distance in a plane orthogonal to the up- down direction from the center position of the camera image to the measurement start position, with respect to a position in the up-down direction of the measurement start position of the examinee, by using the first conversion information”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integrated into Practical Application: No the claim recites “A medical image capturing apparatus comprising: a measurement device that measures an examinee; a measurement data processing device that generates a medical image of the examinee based on a measurement result of the examinee; an examination table that is provided with a tabletop on which the examinee is placed; a sensor that is attached to a measurement room in which the examination table is installed and that acquires a distance from the sensor to an object to be measured; a camera that images the examinee placed on the tabletop to generate a camera image; and an examination table movement control device that controls an operation of the examination table, wherein the examination table movement control device includes one or more processors, and one or more memories that store a program including one or more instructions executed by the one or more processors, and the one or more processors execute the program stored in the one or more memories to acquire, by using a sensor attached to a measurement room in which an examination table is installed, sensor-to-measurement target part distance information representing a distance from the sensor to a surface of a measurement target part of an examinee that faces the sensor in an up-down direction orthogonal to an installation surface of the examination table, the examinee being placed on the examination table; which is generated by imaging the examinee using a camera attached to the measurement room” which are pre-solution insignificant activities that merely amount to data gathering.
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is there directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al., (CN107789001A) (with Examiner provided translation) in view of Li et al., (US20240115226A1) and Forthmann et al., (US20160109545A1)
Regarding claim 1, Min teaches an examination table movement control device comprising (lines 108-111 the device moves the patient table):
one or more processors (line 169-170 the camera 120 comprises a imaging processing unit); and
one or more memories that store a program including one or more instructions executed by the one or more processors (lines 254-256 the storage unit 260 may store instructions for the processor to execute the method procedures);
wherein the one or more processors execute the program stored in the one or more memories to
acquire, by using a sensor in a measurement room in which an examination table is installed (fig. 1 sensor 120 and patient table 114), sensor-to-measurement target part distance information representing a distance from the sensor to a surface of a measurement target part of an examinee (fig. 1 lines 146-152 the depth information includes the distance from the camera 120 to the object 130, and the object 130 can be a patient (line 119)) that faces the sensor in an up-down direction orthogonal to an installation surface of the examination table (fig. 1 the camera 120 is above the patient 130 and therefore they are facing each other in an up-down direction orthogonal to the patient station 114), the examinee being placed on a tabletop of the examination table (fig. 1 the object is the patient and is on top of the patient station 114 lines 90-91),
acquire first conversion information for converting the number of pixels in a camera image (Lines 556-559 the resolution is used to determine the size of the pixels in an image), which is generated by imaging the examinee using an camera (fig. 1 camera 120 line 90) from a center position of the camera image(fig. 6 and 7 pixel Pb is the center of the image lines 540-541) to a position of the examinee into a distance from the center position of the camera image to the position (fig. 7 the coordinates and thus distance of the pixel Pa in the XZ plane can be obtained from the coordinates of pixel Pb lines 551-559), based on the sensor-to-measurement target part distance information (lines 567-578 the coordinate determination subunit acquires the depth information and for all the pixels, and can be used to determine coordinates of the pixel Pa which is the center pixel point of a region of interest ), and
convert the number of pixels in the camera image from the center position of the camera image to the position into a distance in a plane orthogonal to the up-down direction from the center position of the camera image to the position (fig. 7 the distances d3 and d4 are determined, and then the size of each pixel is obtained using the resolution and the d3/d4 distances, and from this the coordinates of the pixel Pa can be determined lines 551-559), with respect to a position in the up-down direction of the measurement start position of the examinee, by using the first conversion information (Lines 545-559 the size of the image can be determined from the distance db which is the distance from the pixel Pb to the camera, and using the size of the image and the resolution, the size of each pixel can be determined which can be then used to teach the distance between pixels).
However, Min is silent regarding using a sensor attached to a measurement room.
In the same imaging apparatus with an examination table field of endeavor, Li teaches a sensor attached to a measurement room (fig. 1 image capturing device 160 may be mounted on the ceiling in an examination room [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the technique of a camera attached to the examination room of Li to the imaging device of Min, as this both inventions relate to imaging patients on an exanimation table, and would yield the predictable result of a camera being mounted on the ceiling of an examination room that includes an examination table to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would be able to apply such a technique, and the results of the device of Min having a camera attached to the ceiling of the examination room are reasonably predictable. Mounting the camera to the measurement room would then allow for a stable and known reference frame for consistent geometry for pixel->distance conversion and improve positioning accuracy.
However, the combination of references are still silent regarding the measurement start position.
In the same imaging apparatus with an examination table field of endeavor, Forthmann teaches the measurement start position ([0004] the target location being indicative of a desired position on the body of the patient for performing an imaging scan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the distance calculation of modified Min to use the target position as taught by Forthmann, as this would reduce the time necessary to prepare the patient for the scan performed by the MRI device y removing the need to manually align the patient table (see Forthmann [0002]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Min teaches the device of claim 1, wherein Min further teaches wherein the one or more processors acquire a distance from the center position of the camera image to the position (fig. 7 the pixel Pb is the center of the image, and the distance to Pa is acquired, and is a movement direction of the table top lines 538-559) in a movement direction of the tabletop that is parallel to the plane orthogonal to the up-down direction (lines 118-130 the patient table is moved in a plane parallel to the plane of the patient table).
However, the combination of references are still silent regarding the measurement start position.
In the same imaging apparatus with an examination table field of endeavor, Forthmann teaches the measurement start position ([0004] the target location being indicative of a desired position on the body of the patient for performing an imaging scan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the distance calculation of modified Min to use the target position as taught by Forthmann, as this would reduce the time necessary to prepare the patient for the scan performed by the MRI device y removing the need to manually align the patient table (see Forthmann [0002]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Min teaches the device of claim 1, wherein Min further teaches wherein the one or more processors acquire a moving distance of the tabletop (lines 237-243 the processor determines the distance the patient table 114 needs to move) in a movement direction of the tabletop in a case in which the position of the examinee is moved to a specified position in a measurement device that measures the examinee (fig. 1 the scanning device may include a CT, PET, MRI machine lines 103-106; lines 192-197 when the poisoning image is scanned, the patient table 114 can be moved so that the x-ray can emit the x-rays into the patient 130), based on the distance from the center position of the camera image to the measurement position of the examinee (Lines 235- 246 the control unit 250 determines the distance between the center pixel and the where the patient table 114 needs to move).
Regarding claim 8, Min teaches an examination table movement control method comprising (lines 108-111 the device moves the patient table):
acquiring, by using a sensor in a measurement room in which an examination table is installed (fig. 1 sensor 120 and patient table 114), sensor-to-measurement target part distance information representing a distance from the sensor to a surface of a measurement target part of an examinee (fig. 1 lines 146-152 the depth information includes the distance from the camera 120 to the object 130, and the object 130 can be a patient (line 119)) that faces the sensor in an up-down direction orthogonal to an installation surface of the examination table (fig. 1 the camera 120 is above the patient 130 and therefore they are facing each other in an up-down direction orthogonal to the patient station 114), the examinee being placed on a tabletop of the examination table (fig. 1 the object is the patient and is on top of the patient station 114 lines 90-91),
acquiring first conversion information for converting the number of pixels in a camera image (Lines 556-559 the resolution is used to determine the size of the pixels in an image), which is generated by imaging the examinee using an camera (fig. 1 camera 120 line 90) from a center position of the camera image(fig. 6 and 7 pixel Pb is the center of the image lines 540-541) to a position of the examinee into a distance from the center position of the camera image to the position (fig. 7 the coordinates and thus distance of the pixel Pa in the XZ plane can be obtained from the coordinates of pixel Pb lines 551-559), based on the sensor-to-measurement target part distance information (lines 567-578 the coordinate determination subunit acquires the depth information and for all the pixels, and can be used to determine coordinates of the pixel Pa which is the center pixel point of a region of interest ), and
converting the number of pixels in the camera image from the center position of the camera image to the position into a distance in a plane orthogonal to the up-down direction from the center position of the camera image to the position (fig. 7 the distances d3 and d4 are determined, and then the size of each pixel is obtained using the resolution and the d3/d4 distances, and from this the coordinates of the pixel Pa can be determined lines 551-559), with respect to a position in the up-down direction of the measurement start position of the examinee, by using the first conversion information (Lines 545-559 the size of the image can be determined from the distance db which is the distance from the pixel Pb to the camera, and using the size of the image and the resolution, the size of each pixel can be determined which can be then used to teach the distance between pixels).
However, Min is silent regarding using a sensor attached to a measurement room.
In the same imaging apparatus with an examination table field of endeavor, Li teaches a sensor attached to a measurement room (fig. 1 image capturing device 160 may be mounted on the ceiling in an examination room [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the technique of a camera attached to the examination room of Li to the imaging device of Min, as this both inventions relate to imaging patients on an exanimation table, and would yield the predictable result of a camera being mounted on the ceiling of an examination room that includes an examination table to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would be able to apply such a technique, and the results of the device of Min having a camera attached to the ceiling of the examination room are reasonably predictable. Mounting the camera to the measurement room would then allow for a stable and known reference frame for consistent geometry for pixel->distance conversion and improve positioning accuracy.
However, the combination of references are still silent regarding the measurement start position.
In the same imaging apparatus with an examination table field of endeavor, Forthmann teaches the measurement start position ([0004] the target location being indicative of a desired position on the body of the patient for performing an imaging scan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the distance calculation of modified Min to use the target position as taught by Forthmann, as this would reduce the time necessary to prepare the patient for the scan performed by the MRI device y removing the need to manually align the patient table (see Forthmann [0002]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Min teaches the method of claim 8, wherein Min further teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable tangible recording medium which records thereon, a program for causing a computer to execute the examination table movement control method (lines 254-256 the storage unit may also store program instructions that, when processed by the processor, perform the method procedures).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min in view of Li and Forthmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Irving et al., (US6658164B1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Min teaches the device of claim 1, wherein Min further teaches a conversion relationship between the number of pixels of the camera image and the distance for each position in the up-down position (Lines 545-559 the size of the image can be determined from the distance db which is the distance from the pixel Pb to the camera, and using the size of the image and the resolution, the size of each pixel can be determined which can be then used to teach the distance between pixels), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors acquire, as the first conversion information, a slope and an intercept of a linear function representing a conversion relationship.
In a reference that is reasonably pertinent to the problem of converting measured pixel-based values into corrected or physical meaningful values using calibration, Irving teaches wherein the one or more processors acquire, as the first conversion information, a slope and an intercept of a linear function representing a conversion relationship (col. 7 lines 20-27 the corrected Pixel value equation is found using the slope and the y-intercept).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of using a slope and intercept of a linear function as a conversion relationship of Irving to the pixel and distance relationship to the device of modified Min, as both inventions relate to pixel processing for an image and would yield the predictable result of a device that determines the distance between pixels using a linear function to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would be to apply such a technique, and the results of the device of modified Min using a linear function to as a conversion relationship are reasonably predictable. This would improve the device as this would improve the reliability of distance estimation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min in view of Li and Forthmann as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Tao et al., (US20130136329A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Min teaches the device of claim 6, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the specified position is a position where scanogram imaging is started.
In the same examination table calibration field of endeavor, Tao teaches wherein the specified position is a position where scanogram imaging is started (fig. 1 patient positioning system 140 moves a patient table to a specified position so that its aligned so that diagnostics may begin [0038]; [0018] Localizer images, also known as a scanogram, are taken at the start of the examination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the technique of scanograms as taught by Tao the device of modified Min as both inventions relate to imaging on a patient table, and would yield the predictable results of moving a patient table to a desired position where a scanogram starts to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would be able to apply such a technique, and the results of the device of modified Min having the patient bed move to a desired position so that a scanogram can be performed are reasonably predictable. This would reduce the risk of a mispositioned patient.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min in view of Li and in further view of Forthmann and Simmerer et al., (US20070251007A1)
Regarding claim 10, Min teaches a medical image capturing apparatus (fig. 1 the apparatus includes a scanning device 110 that includes CT/PET/MRI lines 103-111);
a measurement data processing device that generates a medical image of the examinee based on a measurement result of the examinee (lines 103-111 the scanning device acquires and constructs images based on the data);
an examination table that is provided with a tabletop on which the examinee is placed ();
acquiring, by using a sensor in a measurement room in which an examination table is installed (fig. 1 sensor 120 and patient table 114), sensor-to-measurement target part distance information representing a distance from the sensor to a surface of a measurement target part of an examinee (fig. 1 lines 146-152 the depth information includes the distance from the camera 120 to the object 130, and the object 130 can be a patient (line 119)) that faces the sensor in an up-down direction orthogonal to an installation surface of the examination table (fig. 1 the camera 120 is above the patient 130 and therefore they are facing each other in an up-down direction orthogonal to the patient station 114), the examinee being placed on a tabletop of the examination table (fig. 1 the object is the patient and is on top of the patient station 114 lines 90-91),
acquiring first conversion information for converting the number of pixels in a camera image (Lines 556-559 the resolution is used to determine the size of the pixels in an image), which is generated by imaging the examinee using an camera (fig. 1 camera 120 line 90) from a center position of the camera image(fig. 6 and 7 pixel Pb is the center of the image lines 540-541) to a position of the examinee into a distance from the center position of the camera image to the position (fig. 7 the coordinates and thus distance of the pixel Pa in the XZ plane can be obtained from the coordinates of pixel Pb lines 551-559), based on the sensor-to-measurement target part distance information (lines 567-578 the coordinate determination subunit acquires the depth information and for all the pixels, and can be used to determine coordinates of the pixel Pa which is the center pixel point of a region of interest ), and
converting the number of pixels in the camera image from the center position of the camera image to the position into a distance in a plane orthogonal to the up-down direction from the center position of the camera image to the position (fig. 7 the distances d3 and d4 are determined, and then the size of each pixel is obtained using the resolution and the d3/d4 distances, and from this the coordinates of the pixel Pa can be determined lines 551-559), with respect to a position in the up-down direction of the measurement start position of the examinee, by using the first conversion information (Lines 545-559 the size of the image can be determined from the distance db which is the distance from the pixel Pb to the camera, and using the size of the image and the resolution, the size of each pixel can be determined which can be then used to teach the distance between pixels).
However, Min is silent regarding using a sensor attached to a measurement room.
In the same imaging apparatus with an examination table field of endeavor, Li teaches a sensor attached to a measurement room (fig. 1 image capturing device 160 may be mounted on the ceiling in an examination room [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the technique of a camera attached to the examination room of Li to the imaging device of Min, as this both inventions relate to imaging patients on an exanimation table, and would yield the predictable result of a camera being mounted on the ceiling of an examination room that includes an examination table to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would be able to apply such a technique, and the results of the device of Min having a camera attached to the ceiling of the examination room are reasonably predictable. Mounting the camera to the measurement room would then allow for a stable and known reference frame for consistent geometry for pixel->distance conversion and improve positioning accuracy.
However, the combination of references are still silent regarding the measurement start position.
In the same imaging apparatus with an examination table field of endeavor, Forthmann teaches the measurement start position ([0004] the target location being indicative of a desired position on the body of the patient for performing an imaging scan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the distance calculation of modified Min to use the target position as taught by Forthmann, as this would reduce the time necessary to prepare the patient for the scan performed by the MRI device y removing the need to manually align the patient table (see Forthmann [0002]-[0004]).
However the combination of references are silent regarding an examination table that is provided with a tabletop.
In the same examination table field of endeavor, Simmerer teaches an examination table that is provided with a tabletop (fig. 1 cloth 3 is on the table [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the patient bed of modified Min with the cloth of Simmerer, as this would allow for a layer that does not irritate the skin, thereby improving patient comfort (see Simmerer [0050]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0952. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9:30 am - 6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at 5712722714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL YIMING FANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights